The S1 TNG episode "Conspiracy" had parasite aliens who took over the bodies of high ranking Starfleet officers to subvert the Federation, a species whose identities and full motives were left unresolved after Picard and Riker defeated the aliens' infiltration of Starfleet. Perhaps in the Abramsverse the parasite species have an interest in the Federation a century earlier.

Click to expand...

The novels make the parasites a dangerous Trill offshoot of some kind (I don't recall the details), but I don't recall the concept being followed up to a satisfying conclusion. I'd love to revisit the parasites.....one of TNG's few major unresolved cliffhangers.

It seems that there are some who rather Trek die with it's limited appeal because it worked OK in their day and to their own tastes of relentless technobabble and cheesy exchange of dialog than to attract and inspire many more people who could like Trek and become life long fans themselves.

Click to expand...

That's not a fair assessment IMHO. Abrams and the writers would have more credibility with me if they developed some original material for our traditional characters. It's the alternate timeline that sticks in my craw. Pre-TOS material could've been terrific on its own. Take the characters through the academy and their initial sojourns into space. Pike could've been the vehicle to tie it all together. Instead, we have to destroy 2 fundamental cultures (and their homes), kill off Kirk's father and ruin his childhood, in essence changing all the core events that created the Kirk and crew that we know AND have come to love. As I wrote in an earlier post, all Abrams has done is to turn everything upside down and call it art. Are you telling me that all of the character destruction was necessary to make Trek accessible to newer audiences? Rubbish.

Click to expand...

What is shocking is you have a single minded idea of how Trek should be and that Paramount, Abrams, the writing staff should change the direction they took which made millions and entertained a much wider audience in order to please the minority.

It seems that there are some who rather Trek die with it's limited appeal because it worked OK in their day and to their own tastes of relentless technobabble and cheesy exchange of dialog than to attract and inspire many more people who could like Trek and become life long fans themselves.

Click to expand...

That's not a fair assessment IMHO. Abrams and the writers would have more credibility with me if they developed some original material for our traditional characters. It's the alternate timeline that sticks in my craw. Pre-TOS material could've been terrific on its own. Take the characters through the academy and their initial sojourns into space. Pike could've been the vehicle to tie it all together. Instead, we have to destroy 2 fundamental cultures (and their homes), kill off Kirk's father and ruin his childhood, in essence changing all the core events that created the Kirk and crew that we know AND have come to love. As I wrote in an earlier post, all Abrams has done is to turn everything upside down and call it art. Are you telling me that all of the character destruction was necessary to make Trek accessible to newer audiences? Rubbish.

Click to expand...

What is shocking is you have a single minded idea of how Trek should be and that Paramount, Abrams, the writing staff should change the direction they took which made millions and entertained a much wider audience in order to please the minority.

The sure sign of a weak argument is when one of the participants resorts to a personal attack. Furthermore, your appeal to evidence by pointing out that millions were entertained, etc. is a classic straw man fallacy.

It's worthy of praise as it made Trek very accessible and relevant in 2013. The box office and non-trekkie critics reflect that.

To re-launch Trek with those high budgets in the way how you are familiar with Trek back in 1994-1999 would further make Trek so elite, inaccessible and even unpalatable beyond repair.

It seems that there are some who rather Trek die with it's limited appeal because it worked OK in their day and to their own tastes of relentless technobabble and cheesy exchange of dialog than to attract and inspire many more people who could like Trek and become life long fans themselves.

Click to expand...

That's a false dichotomy. Plenty of Star Trek has had commercial appeal in spite of (1) being "heady", (2) skimping on the special effects, and (3) preferring dialogue over action. It's difficult to account for the successes of TVH or TNG without noticing those things. And even though it used military-style conflict, TWOK was weak in terms of special effects, even for its day. Conversely, Nemesis still sucked even though it was thematically lighter, had a bigger effects budget, emphasized more action, and was directed by someone who could care less for trek.

Click to expand...

What counts as 'commercial appeal' back in 1982 and 1986 is not the same as in 2013.

Things have changed, whether or not you think it has progressed artistically.

High budget films are not made to tick the boxes of a few demanding fans, it is there to make money by mass appeal.

That's not a fair assessment IMHO. Abrams and the writers would have more credibility with me if they developed some original material for our traditional characters. It's the alternate timeline that sticks in my craw. Pre-TOS material could've been terrific on its own. Take the characters through the academy and their initial sojourns into space. Pike could've been the vehicle to tie it all together. Instead, we have to destroy 2 fundamental cultures (and their homes), kill off Kirk's father and ruin his childhood, in essence changing all the core events that created the Kirk and crew that we know AND have come to love. As I wrote in an earlier post, all Abrams has done is to turn everything upside down and call it art. Are you telling me that all of the character destruction was necessary to make Trek accessible to newer audiences? Rubbish.

Click to expand...

What is shocking is you have a single minded idea of how Trek should be and that Paramount, Abrams, the writing staff should change the direction they took which made millions and entertained a much wider audience in order to please the minority.

The sure sign of a weak argument is when one of the participants resorts to a personal attack. Furthermore, your appeal to evidence by pointing out that millions were entertained, etc. is a classic straw man fallacy.

Click to expand...

Personal attack? I simply made an opinion that your ideas of Trek is not suitable for today's audience due to its self indulgence, no one gives a damn if Kirk liked to play baseball, or if Chekov liked to collect romulan postage stamps. It is poor story telling to waste minutes of screen time forcing audences to listen to trival facets of character's history that has no significant contribution to the story telling. Again all IMHO.

The same way you express your opinion that JJ Trek is guilty of 'character destruction'.

P.S - People are not forced to watch Star Trek into darkness, yet many of them have paid up with their own money and invested 2+hrs of their time and many of them came out smiling. For me as a trek fan, that is one of the best things that can happen!

That's not a fair assessment IMHO. Abrams and the writers would have more credibility with me if they developed some original material for our traditional characters. It's the alternate timeline that sticks in my craw. Pre-TOS material could've been terrific on its own. Take the characters through the academy and their initial sojourns into space. Pike could've been the vehicle to tie it all together. Instead, we have to destroy 2 fundamental cultures (and their homes), kill off Kirk's father and ruin his childhood, in essence changing all the core events that created the Kirk and crew that we know AND have come to love. As I wrote in an earlier post, all Abrams has done is to turn everything upside down and call it art. Are you telling me that all of the character destruction was necessary to make Trek accessible to newer audiences? Rubbish.

Click to expand...

What is shocking is you have a single minded idea of how Trek should be and that Paramount, Abrams, the writing staff should change the direction they took which made millions and entertained a much wider audience in order to please the minority.

The sure sign of a weak argument is when one of the participants resorts to a personal attack. Furthermore, your appeal to evidence by pointing out that millions were entertained, etc. is a classic straw man fallacy.

Click to expand...

If you honestly believe that there has been a personal attack, then the thing for you to do would be to use the Notify Moderator button to bring attention to it, not to call it out in-thread.

I'd question the validity of the claim, though. If one endeavors to make a point by using language such as "X would have more credibility with me if... " and "it's Y that sticks in my craw," is it really a personal attack if the person responding to that language opines that "you have a single minded idea of how Z should be"?

I'm not so sure.

anh165 could probably stand to dial it back a notch himself, but I'd like you to try to keep this a friendly discussion and leave the "stern debate-class lecture" shtick for debate class. That tactic is one which has badly worn out its welcome here of late.